Joe Horn - Page 3

Drolefille · #1 12-05-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'd like to direct your attention to the "or" following (A).

Anything under B is unnecessary if A is met. The converse is also true.

Also, from a practical standpoint, try picking a jury that's not going to hang on this case

No charges will be filed.

The real question is, is it "burglary", "robbery", or "theft in the nighttime" OR "burglary", "robbery", or "theft" in the nighttime.

Kevin · #2 12-05-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The real question is, is it "burglary", "robbery", or "theft in the nighttime" OR "burglary", "robbery", or "theft" in the nighttime.

Since it lists criminal mischief during the nighttime as well as theft during the nighttime as two separate things, I don't see "during the nighttime" applying to the rest of the passage. If your proposed construction were true, the first "during the nighttime" would be redundant.

I'll bet if you go to the Texas Penal Code, you'll find that those two things are distinct crimes.

nittanyalum · #3 12-05-2007, 04:42 PM

Here's a good follow-up article.

DaemonSeid · #4 12-05-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Here's a good follow-up article.

Nittany...thank you....I think it also answers some questions

Quoted from the article:

"....report a burglary next door on that November afternoon"

and

Although a Texas law allows citizens to use deadly force to protect neighbors' property, some experts say the statute only applies to nighttime incidents.

Kevin · #5 12-05-2007, 06:40 PM

Well 9.42 and 9.41 are even more liberal than 9.43, so if he was defending his own property, it only comes down to whether or not he reasonably believed it threatened.

Drolefille · #6 12-05-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well 9.42 and 9.41 are even more liberal than 9.43, so if he was defending his own property, it only comes down to whether or not he reasonably believed it threatened.

True, and that's probably why it's his story, except it doesn't fit with the 911 call showing he had intent to shoot and kill them before he left his house and "discovered" they were on his property. And I'm not sure their location been confirmed by the police at this point.

Add to that my fundamental disagreement with the idea that after calling 911 you should get to go outside and kill someone over a TV - the death penalty isn't used for burglary, even in Texas - and suffice to say I won't be contented with the fact that he might have followed the law. Particularly when all he has to do is lie, or get his neighbor to do so.

Kevin · #7 12-05-2007, 06:58 PM

The counter to that is that the 911 call is only probative of his mindset prior to the killings. It cannot be used to describe with any accuracy Horn's mindset when he pulled the trigger, nor can it be used to indicate whether Horn's belief is reasonable pursuant to sections 9.41 et seq.

And no, in Texas, the penalty for burglary is not death. I don't see how that's even relevant though. This wasn't a killing pursuant to a penal statute.

This was a killing in defense of property. If Horn is charged with murder, 9.41 et seq. will serve as an affirmative defense just like self-defense would be.

The Texas legislature in their infinite wisdom saw fit to allow citizens to use deadly force to defend their property (but not man traps, see 9.44). Your beef would be with the Texas legislature, not Joe Horn in that regard.

Perhaps the overarching theme here and the wisdom we can glean from all of this is that if you don't want bad things to happen to you, don't be a burglar.

Easy enough

If you think the Horn case is interesting, check this one out. Three robbers break into a house. Homeowner kills two. Third robber gets charged with felony murder.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21824930/

Drolefille · #8 12-05-2007, 07:05 PM

For making it legal, yeah my beef would be with them, my beef is with him for doing it.

I'd say that the 911 call shows he intended to shoot/kill them no matter where they were. I don't know how that legally impacts the case if they actually showed up on his property when he opened the door (and the lawyer makes it sound like they were a foot away

) but it would impact me as a juror. HE escalated the situation to a deadly one, not the robbers.

I mention that the penalty for burglary isn't death because that is not what the burglars should have gotten for their crime. Their lives were worth more than that, no matter how screwed up they were.

The problem is that when you allow the escalation that Texas allows, burglars aren't necessarily the only ones to have bad things happen to them because of it. This man was lucky he didn't shoot a cop in the process of shooting the burglars. If he had, this would be a whole different story no matter how "threatened" he felt at the time.

Is the "shot in the back" vs "shot in the front" issue at all relevant in Texas?

Kevin · #9 12-05-2007, 07:36 PM

If he had shot a cop or someone innocent, he would have been criminally liable. Gun owners are generally pretty careful about these sorts of things.

At any rate, I don't have a problem with the law. Perhaps if word gets out about this statute, it'll be a deterrent?

The profession of burglar is now more hazardous. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

DaemonSeid · #10 12-05-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin

If he had shot a cop or someone innocent, he would have been criminally liable. Gun owners are generally pretty careful about these sorts of things.

At any rate, I don't have a problem with the law. Perhaps if word gets out about this statute, it'll be a deterrent?

The profession of burglar is now more hazardous. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

hey....now there is a question.....was his firearm registered?

Does a shotgun in Texas have to be registered?

Kevin · #11 12-05-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

hey....now there is a question.....was his firearm registered?

Does a shotgun in Texas have to be registered?

I have no idea.

macallan25 · #12 12-05-2007, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

hey....now there is a question.....was his firearm registered?

Does a shotgun in Texas have to be registered?

You have to have a permit in Texas to carry a handgun. That's about it.

Rifles and Shotguns don't have to be registered and you don't have to have a permit or license.

Personally, I don't think he broke the law either. Also, how are many of you stating that he was in no danger, didn't feel threatened, etc. Were you all there? Do you know the guy?

nittanyalum · #13 12-05-2007, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

Rifles and Shotguns don't have to be registered and you don't have to have a permit or license.

Well Texas does clearly warn everyone not to mess with it... guess that's proving to be sound advice.

DaemonSeid · #14 12-06-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

Personally, I don't think he broke the law either. Also, how are many of you stating that he was in no danger, didn't feel threatened, etc. Were you all there? Do you know the guy?

Macallan, I would be one...listen to the 911 call, he clearly was in no danger as long as he stayed in the house, he never made it sound as if the robbers were coming to his house, he never made it sound as if they threatened him, from the recording, as long as he stayed put and let the cops do their job, he was safe.

Kevin · #15 12-06-2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

Personally, I don't think he broke the law either. Also, how are many of you stating that he was in no danger, didn't feel threatened, etc. Were you all there? Do you know the guy?

More importantly, feeling "danger" and being "threatened" are not elements which are necessary to raise the defense.

Quote:

Macallan, I would be one...listen to the 911 call, he clearly was in no danger as long as he stayed in the house, he never made it sound as if the robbers were coming to his house, he never made it sound as if they threatened him, from the recording, as long as he stayed put and let the cops do their job, he was safe.

None of that stuff is necessary either. Texas doesn't have a duty to retreat, nor does it specify that you have to feel there's a danger of death or serious bodily harm, or papercuts, or that the defense can't be raised on days starting with a T. The statute is pretty clearly set up to allow homeowners to take care of situations which may potentially become dangerous, thus allowing the homeowner to avoid having to ever be in danger at all.

Weighing the equities here, I'm going to have to say that I'll place the security and safety of homeowners above burglars' lives every single time. You don't know that by calling the cops, if there had been the duty to retreat, etc., that there would have eventually been a hostage situation, or something dangerous like that. You just don't know.

In Texas, they prefer not to find out.